April 5, 2011

The ambitious plan, drafted principally by Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Budget Committee, proposes not only to limit federal spending and reconfigure major federal health programs, but also to rewrite the tax code, cutting the top tax rate for both individuals and corporations to 25 percent from 35 percent, reducing the number of income tax brackets and eliminating what it calls a “burdensome tangle of loopholes.”...

Democrats... say the emerging proposal amounts to a conservative ideological manifesto showing that Republicans intend to cut benefits and programs for the nation’s retirees and neediest citizens while protecting corporate America and the wealthiest people from paying their share of taxes....

Well, it is a conservative ideological manifesto, isn't it? Do the Republicans deny that? Do you like ideological clarity, or would you move away from the party that wears its ideology openly and seems committed to following it? Ideologues scare me.

As I understand it the budget basically cuts the government back to 2007 levels. On the present course the government share of the economy will bloat to twice the current size in 15 years or less. Is there really a need to have a Federal government this large? Are we in that much need of being bossed at every conceivable turn?

Republicans have historically done a terrible job of controlling the language of the debate on this topic. "Cuts" have been trimming increases, so that a reduction of a ten percent increase in spending in a particular area to 5% has been viewed as a horror, a draconian evisceration of something the children desperately need. This, of course, is preposterous. 2007 levels would work fine.

One of the things I like about this plan is that they designed it for dickering room. I'm sure Ryan would be quite happy to get the top tax brackets down to 30% but if he started there, he'd wind up with may 33 or 34%.

The Democrat at the Brookings Institution who originally proposed the Medicare overhaul contained in the Ryan's plan said she would prefer that the default Medicare was still offered as an option; which might actually be a good proposal, but by leaving it out, it's one you can give later as a "concession".

Speaking of scary I was talking to a guy that works for a gas transport company and he was saying with $4 gas out in California before the natural summer demand and uptick in price because of the summer oil refinery requirements gas could hit .... (something like that)

Trying to keep spending under control is what rational people do. No way is it extreme. Borrowing 40% of what the government spends is radical and unsubstainable. Perhaps it is only a bargaining point, but is only a half measure.

Well, it is a conservative ideological manifesto, isn't it? Do the Republicans deny that? Do you like ideological clarity, or would you move away from the party that wears its ideology openly and seems committed to following it? Ideologues scare me.

Am I misreading you when I interpret this post (scroll down to October 8 and October 30)) to mean McCain lost you in large part because he offered insufficient ideological clarity?

So McCain was a boring muddle and Ryan's a scary ideologue. Who's your Goldilocks conservative?

I'd like a full apology from every single liberal who said that the conservative leadership would never dare to actually cut spending, or make a proposal that would actually balance the budget.You have nothing to say to me, or any other adult who votes, until you also are willing to deal with this issue seriously. Leave the adults alone to work on the issues.

I’m tired of “Conservatives” who:1) Ceaselessly proclaim, “We’re doomed”; 2) Who can’t accept fiscal/political reality; and3) Who won’t accept anything but 100% of their own home-baked loaf.IF we’re “doomed” my advice is ask for as much welfare/government aid as you can get, and convert it into food, gold, and ammunition…are you? Because if we’re doomed there’s no point in even trying to “fix” our problems! Now mayhap you are a bunch of Gloomy Gus’/Nattering Nabobs of Negativity, but thankfully the country hasn’t been run by the likes of YOU! Praise be to Yhwh we have had Reagan and people like Ryan and Palin, who don’t believe we’re DOOMED, but are, instead, offering some solutions. As to you “we’re doomed” you sound like the French in 1939 or the Weimar politicians of 1932…

And let’s own some reality. IF we do NOTHING, follow the POTUS’ “plan” for spending we’re going to end up like Greece. So, the GOP proposes some changes in the long-term budget, the Ryan Roadmap. Now is it enough, does it touch Social Security? No, but IT’S A START! That Thousand Mile Journey begins with one step, and let’s be honest it’s a pretty courageous step…because, as usual, the heatless, Mean-Spirited, Extremist Republicans are starving Grandma and taking candy from babies, according to the Other Party! And yet, the GOP took this step, KNOWING what was going to be said…You’re not going to change the Welfare State overnight and you;’re not going to be able to touch Sosh’Security for some time! And to think you CAN is foolish, in the extreme. So how about coming on board and saying, “This is a good first step.. And let’s see where we can go after its passage” Rather than, “we’re doomed!”

Lastly, EVERYONE has a plan to make a million dollars that will not work (Murphy’s Laws). EVERYONE has a plan to “fix” the budget, but we’re not Ryan or Boehner, only THEIR plans count…unless I’ve missed the mark, a lot of folks who have a Plan” don’t have the Power…so, how about we try THIS plan, the one at heand, rather than waiting for the “Perfect” Plan, which only I/you could concoct, but then I’d object to your plan and vice versa…..

I say let’s “OK” this plan and then hold Boehner et. al. feet to the fire…..It’s going to be tough, really IMPOSSIBLE to pass this plan, this year…it’s only realistically possible in 2013 when Palin or some other Republican is POTUS, but let’s get moving now, and require that the GOP adopt this plan.

With the professor's angst, I believe I see the fruit of the left's continued effort to demonize all choices but those they propose. It is so much easier for "nice" people to comfort themselves with thoughts of unicorns (and hope... and change...) when they read how evil is the "wingnut" option. Stop it dear professor - it's but a proposal and one much needed. Your trepidation can lead to dire consequences... like voting for Obama.

So one party would rather let the train wreck happen so they can push their ideological solution - raise taxes and turn us into a Eurosocialist nation. The other party wants to avoid the wreck by taking action now and reducing the size of government to a sustainable one.

What is it that Boehner just doesn't get? Perhaps, all he knows how to do is count republicans ... when most people prefer to be Independents?

Boehner is running from shadows.

But he sure knows the "gibberish."

In Rumsfeld's new memoir, which is TOP OF THE CHARTS, in #1, at the NY Times. (Which he said "must be killing them.) Rumsfeld talks about getting to DC. Maybe, there are 140 republican members in the house. And, archaic leadership. So, Rumseld decides it's time to mount a campaign to get rid of the rigid republican leadership. He turns to GERALD FORD! (Yeah, he tries to build up this character's image.) But, give me a break. If you have to go to Gerald Ford to "breath new fire, and new blood into your party ... You're looking at someone who preferred to play golf. And, who couldn't make a decision.

When did the fault show up? When Ford tried to claim the White House as his own in 1976. (That's the year Reagan got tossed overboard.)

Some people never learn.

So sad. Too bad.

On the other hand? Rumsfeld's delightful. Worked for a few republican stinkers. But it's not his fault.

Well, it is a conservative ideological manifesto, isn't it? Do the Republicans deny that?

Well as someone already has said, that is the spin. I guess if you ignored the whole idea of limited government and that Republicans do not believe in the transfer of wealth through entitlement programs via government taxation in the first place, without even addressing the fact that we are, in fact, broke as a nation, you could buy the spin.

...and it should be noted. Ryan's plan takes 10 YEARS LONGER to get back to 2010 debt levels than the president's own Deficit Commission plan - and that doesn't even pay back the additional debt we are building as we type.

"Medicare was established in the first place because retirees had difficulty getting affordable health insurance due to their higher medical liabilities.

And of course, even those who could afford such insurance would find their policies rescinded if their care got too expensive.

Medicare has been one of the most successful government programs of the past century, helping countless seniors get quality care without putting themselves into bankruptcy paying for private insurance."

Ezra Klein on Ryan's plan:

"The current Medicare program would be dissolved and the next generation of seniors would choose from Medicare-certified private plans on an exchange. But that wouldn’t save money. In fact, it would cost money. As the Congressional Budget Office has said, since Medicare is cheaper than private insurance, beneficiaries will see “higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare.”

Garage: I think the plan is to cut expenses across the board at a fixed rate. Do you not think that the government cannot be run on the same money as it was in 2005 or 2001 for that matter? Do you honestly believe that or can you only talk about taxing the rich? You do understand that if you took all, all, every fucking dime from the rich it would not pay off our debt? All their assets, all their income, everything including the watches off their wrists. And their Swiss and Cayman bank accounts. Every. thing. You get that part I hope.

Cut taxes for the top and pay for it by gutting vital social programs. This seriously is the only "idea" Republicans have these days. Sounds so awesome.

Garage is channeling his hero Michael Moore and further promotes the idea that your money isn't really yours, it's a "national resource". Where do you draw the line on personal property, Garage? What's actually yours?

Yep, because if the Federal Govt. does not control the Grand Canyon you cannot possibly get your own stupid ass there and look at it. You cannot park your car and go around the locked gate and walk to the river and back. Because without the government you are too fucking stupid and lazy to see the Grand Canyon. This quote says it all. Everything.

I have relatives on my father's side that are on Medicare. I have relatives on my wife's side, three of them across two generations, that are practicing doctors who refuse to accept any more medicare patients...because they never...get...paid. It actually costs them money to see a medicare recipient.

Althouse, was it Keynes who said something about even the most hard-headed man of business is the prisoner of some long-dead scribner? As someone previously wrote, the root of ideologue is IDEA…and from a Law Professor, being afraid of ideology is kind of rich, don’t you think? What is Law but words, guided by IDEOLOGY?

Ann, why do ideologues scare you when the ideology is correct in it's assertions? How are these budget cuts wrong when we all know democrats don't have a dime worth of cuts on the table for a completely unsustainable budget?

"So can I assume none of the local teabaggers here are utilizing benefits afforded them via Medicare or Medicaid?None of you have relatives or friends who are utilizing benefits afforded them via Medicare or Medicaid?"

Because there is no such thing as a voter who cares about his country, or considers his vote as anything but a way to grab what he wants? I hope you don't mean that.

I like the plan as a starting point. I would just like to propose a few additions:

1) Means test Social Security and Medicare – if we are going to be forced to pay for subsidies for the elderly, it should be for the elderly who actually need the support. I can live with subsidizing the poor and (to a lesser extent) some of the middle class who didn’t earn enough to save for their retirement but demographically the elderly are generally wealthier than the younger workers who are funding their retirement and health care.

2) Phase in a higher retirement age for both Social Security and Medicare – with increased longevity, improved geriatrics and a demographic time bomb, we need to get serious about how long people realistically should expect to work. We can should phase in the change it over time so that people who are closer to retirement can adjust their plans and make some allowances for people whose health prevents them from working longer but it’s something that needs to happen.

3) Eliminate agricultural subsidies instead of just reducing the fixed payments and making farmers buy their own crops insurance.

You can criticize me for saying we're doomed, but I'm just being realistic. In my everyday life, I'm a pretty happy optimistic person, but when I look at the reality of America today, I know that, long term ... bad news. This makes me say because I have kids who'll have to deal with it.

Here's the reality. Half the country doesn't want any cuts - they are "extreme" and will "evicerate" essential programs.Of the other half, most who "say" they want cuts,; as soon as you announce the actual cuts, most of that support dissolves.

1) Means test Social Security and Medicare – if we are going to be forced to pay for subsidies for the elderly, it should be for the elderly who actually need the support.

*Does this include the wealthy not collecting Social Security?

2) Phase in a higher retirement age for both Social Security and Medicare – with increased longevity, improved geriatrics and a demographic time bomb, we need to get serious about how long people realistically should expect to work.

*When you say "phase in," what period of time are you suggesting, and what is the age you're offering up as the new initiation level for collecting?

3) Eliminate agricultural subsidies instead of just reducing the fixed payments and making farmers buy their own crops insurance.

*GFL luck with that one...and with oil company subsidies, too. (You actually think the GOP is going to run with this??)

RDKraus, LEAVE THE FREAK’N COUNTRY, THEN….if we’re so DOOMED, why you or they would stay makes you foolish in the extreme! “Golly, look at that iceberg, Mabel….Let’s stay on the Titanic.” Unlike Leonardo DiCaprio you DON’T have to go down with the ship. I say flee, right now…after all even moving to new Zealand and starting over is preferable, IF WE’RE DOOMED! If you aren’t moving, you don’t really think we’re doomed…or you’re sillier than you ought to be…

Bottom-Line: I’m just asking you to confront a truth, are we doomed, if so why are you still here?

AWOL and it pissed off many of us fiscal conservatives. In my state we did something about it, giving the boot to two RINOS in the past three years.

So where are the Democrats now? They have proposed nothing that makes a modicum of sense. However bad the GOP was under Bush, the Democrats are far worse. However bad Bush was fiscally, Obama is magnitudes worse.

Jeremy, in his tireless crusade for the rights of old people, until they collide with what he wants, forgets that Social Security is today running a daily $134M deficit. Since we can presume being an SEIU troll doesn't pay enough to fund his cut of that overage, cutting the fat or privatization is the only way to see that anything exists at the time when he wants his government nose candy.

I'm certainly not leaving the country because you think I'm too pessimitic. Even if you shout. I like to look at the facts with my eyes open. I don't want to make believe that the problems we've created are magically going to be fixed. For every (wonderful) Paul Ryan, there are three non-ideological nitwits who just want to get elected again.

Jeremy: "But once again: Where was all of this talk between 2000 - 2008??"

There was no urgency until around 2008. The numbers below indicate the debt of the U.S.from 2000 until 2008. The current debt is 14 trillion. You, as a business major with math skills, can figure out why there is more urgency now.

And that's based on one person's opinion, Peter Morici, U of MD Business Professor.

Here's another view:

Thanks to hikes in the Social Security payroll tax in the 1980s designed to create a surplus to handle the crunch of baby-boomer retirements, the program's trust fund is projected to grow steadily for nearly 20 more years — until 2027.

After that, officials estimate there will be sufficient money to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041.

AND

Why do so many people believe Social Security is broke?

One reason is President George W. Bush told them so — repeatedly during the battle over his proposal to partially privatize the program by allowing workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.

''So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now,'' Bush said on Jan. 11, 2005. ''And that's what we're here to talk about, a system that will be bankrupt.''

Over the next several months, in dozens of stops across the nation, Bush amplified the warning.

Bush's statements left many economists shaking their heads because of what was inside the file cabinets — U.S. Treasury bonds.

Specially issued for the Social Security Trust Fund, the bonds are backed by the ''full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.'' The United States has never defaulted on a Treasury security, said Stephen Meyerhardt, spokesman for the Treasury Department's Bureau of the Public Debt. ''Treasuries are as safe as they come.''

''I have no doubt that Social Security will be there for a couple generations,'' said Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economics at the New School for Social Research in New York. ''Looking at the numbers right now, Social Security is one of the most financially sound programs that we have in the federal budget.''

My take on the proposal is the opposite of Ann; surprisingly progressive. Progressive income tax rates with the deductions for the "better to do" removed. Means testing for medicare premium subsidies and sociasl security payments. Cutting the Pentagon budget. Then there is the headline, which should be titled, "....a budget proposal that reduces anticipated spending growth by 5.8 Trillion" When you look at all these items, the conclusion is a practical, comprehensive reform of inflow and outflow of federal dollars. This has been avoided like teh plague forever and finally someone has the cojones to present a real plan.

The first Adults arrive. News flash - there is no Easter Bunny, Santa doesn't bring presents, and there is no free lunch. Let the games begin. The next year decides if we remain a republic or become the banana variety.

RDKraus, no one says it will be “magically fixed” I don’t believe that the Slaves were freed magically, that Civil Rights granted, magically, that womyn go the right to vote, magically, that Hitler was defeated, magically……but had we adopted the “We’re doomed” approach Blacks would still be chattel property and womyn wouldn’t have the vote and I guess ALL Jews would have to be either Crypto Jews or corpses….

So you have nowhere to run, as Beck quotes from Reagan, “This is Freedom’s last stand. If Freedom fails here we have no place to run to.” Since this it, by your own admission, I’d quit saying, “We’re Doomed” and get to bailing the water…….

Jeremy: Are you indifferent to the numbers I provided? Or do they lead you to rage against the past? We are where we are. What do you propose we do about the staggering debt we are confronted with now. Now. Not then. Now. What are your ideas, what are the president's ideas? Forget who caused it because it is now and right now it doesn't matter who created the debt or why it was created. The issue is what are we as a nation going to do about it? The Republicans have a plan. What is the Democrat plan? What is the president's plan? What is your plan? It is big boy time now, not time to talk about who did it or why it was done or when it was done. It is time to fix it.

"Thanks to hikes in the Social Security payroll tax in the 1980s designed to create a surplus to handle the crunch of baby-boomer retirements, the program's trust fund is projected to grow steadily for nearly 20 more years — until 2027.

After that, officials estimate there will be sufficient money to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041."

Jeremy - Please explain to us how the Social Security trust fund works.

One more thing on Social Security, Rs and Ds have been passing bills to "save" it since Reagan and (yes, I've told the story before) talking as a kid with my mother about stories in the paper concerning Social security going broke (ca 58 - 59).

The talk of government bonds sounds nice, but the bonds themselves are worthless and they're mostly IOUs.

The Social Security Administration is an independent federal agency with its own revenue stream and depository fund:

IT IS NOT A PART OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

It is an independent agency.

The Social Security Administration runs at a surplus of about $190 billion per year.

Using any realistic view of the U.S. economy, the Social Security System will stay solvent, in fact reap a surplus, throughout the entire twenty-first century.

Thesuggestion that the Social Security System will run out of money by the year 2029 (or 2042) is based on projections by Wall Streeters using statistics projecting U.S. growth in the next 75 years at 1.4% annually.

Over the past 75 years the American economy has been growing at about 2.8% annually.

Even during the worst economic times in the U.S. - during the 1930s depression - the economy grew at 1.9%.

*WOW* I’m glad you don’t coach any teams I watch…..Glad you weren’t there in June 1940….Man, glad you weren’t speaking to Congress in December 1941…thankful you didn’t give the Second Inaugural or Gettysburg Address….

Ryan isn't ambitious enough. Roll back the government to 1970 and adjust for population and inflation. That's for starters. Then eliminate all tax credits and farm subsidies. Eliminate the Davis-Bacon Act, the Wagner Act and public sector unions. Privatize social security and medicare for all workers 45 and under and have them save for their retirements in tax exempt and creditor proof annuities (with no borrowing allowed unless diagnosed with a terminal illness). Guarantee a small monthly minimum for those who when the retirement age comes for whatever reason do not have enough savings (the original social security program as sold to the public). No double dipping for government employees( under the current plans) going forward same scheme as the private sector. One pension only for them One flat income tax rate of 15% with no deductions other than the standard for each dependent with a double the minimum wage floor and every dollar above that taxed. Same rate for capital gains with an adjustment for inflation. Eliminate the corporate income tax and capital gains tax and tax the shareholders (no matter what the otherwise taxable status of the taxpayer) at the 15% rate. Adjust the spending to the revenues and not the revenues to the spending. Finally start a great repeal of legislation, regulation and policies that deter manufacturing in this country and retard exports. If high wage countries like the northern Europeans and Japan can export high end manufactured goods so can we. it's time we stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

Finally start a great repeal of legislation, regulation and policies that deter manufacturing in this country and retard exports. If high wage countries like the northern Europeans and Japan can export high end manufactured goods so can we. it's time we stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

You DO realize that manufacturing in this country is larger TODAY than it was in the 1970’s, adjusted for inflation, right?

It is very unfortunate that the Social Security Trust Fund has misled and continues to mislead a generation of liberals. A little thought would make it obvious to anyone that a safe full of US Treasury Bonds are not an asset to the US government, since it can print them at will. So the statement that "Social Security is solvent because of the Trust Fund" is actually equivalent to the statement "Social Security is solvent because the United States Government is able to print money." I don't expect anyone to make the second statement.

Jeremy, where did I say medicare and social security were terrible programs. Nowhere. Moreover, you are making the bullshit argument that since I want to fix something, I must hate that thing.

But, back to my point. So where are the Democrats now? They have proposed nothing that makes a modicum of sense.

You refuse to answer that because you can't. The democrats have proposed nothing of substance; only a reduction in spending increases.

Like Obama, you keep complaining about the past without offering anything at all for the future. (I work for a company that really fucked up three years ago. That fuck up saddled us with millions of dollars of debt. We learned, leaned out, became more efficient and focused, and will likely hit the break even point in the next three months. What we didn't do is whine incesantly about the past.)

Under current projections, the combined Social Security trust funds will continue to run annual surpluses until 2025. The interest income that the trust funds earn on their bonds, as well as the proceeds the trust funds will receive when their bonds are redeemed, will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits until 2037.In 2037, the trust funds are projected to run out of Treasury bonds to cash in.

Original Mike - "I already know the answer, Jeremy. As a teacher, I was trying to lead you to it."

Geee, Mikey, are you one of those money grubbing teachers, doing a terrible job of educating America's children? The kind of worker who should not have the right to bargain collectively, even as you apparently feel you know everything there is to know...about Social Security?

As to your question regarding the securities deposited into trust fund, I would assume the SSA could, on occasion, if necessary, redeem the securities.

Finally start a great repeal of legislation, regulation and policies that deter manufacturing in this country and retard exports. If high wage countries like the northern Europeans and Japan can export high end manufactured goods so can we. it's time we stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

You DO realize that manufacturing in this country is larger TODAY than it was in the 1970’s, adjusted for inflation, right?

4/5/11 12:20 PM

Only if you compare the US today to the US in 1970.Try comparing the US in 1970 to Northern Europe and Japan in 1970 and the relative comparison today. They have gained and we have lost. I'm saying strip away self inflicted obstacles so we can get close to what we were in 1970 relative to our competitors. We need this to keep our economy large enough to be the world's reserve currency. We lose that status and we are well and truly screwed. Besides the fact that export surpluses are a good in of themselves, manufacturing not only creates good paying jobs that do not require the unicorn chase of an expensive college degree for a large segment of the population that neither needs or can afford the undergraduate degree it also is a national defense consideration.

Jeremy said...1) Means test Social Security and Medicare – if we are going to be forced to pay for subsidies for the elderly, it should be for the elderly who actually need the support.

*Does this include the wealthy not collecting Social Security?

2) Phase in a higher retirement age for both Social Security and Medicare – with increased longevity, improved geriatrics and a demographic time bomb, we need to get serious about how long people realistically should expect to work.

*When you say "phase in," what period of time are you suggesting, and what is the age you're offering up as the new initiation level for collecting?

3) Eliminate agricultural subsidies instead of just reducing the fixed payments and making farmers buy their own crops insurance.

*GFL luck with that one...and with oil company subsidies, too. (You actually think the GOP is going to run with this??)

But once again: Where was all of this talk between 2000 - 2008??

Obama's average monthly deficits are larger than the average annual deficits in those years. That is why the urgency. By the way there was talk of these things during that time frame but the democrats being in sufficient number to block any consideration of these things in those years they blocked any consideration or vote on these items.

"Geee, Mikey, are you one of those money grubbing teachers, doing a terrible job of educating America's children? The kind of worker who should not have the right to bargain collectively, even as you apparently feel you know everything there is to know...about Social Security?"

Yes.

"As to your question regarding the securities deposited into trust fund, I would assume the SSA could, on occasion, if necessary, redeem the securities."

Correct. And to redeem them they present them to the original issurer of the bond and receive their prinipal back, correct?

Where was all of this angst and bitching and whining between 2000 and 2008?

You're arguing in a circle and not addressing the real issue, but, to hopefully satisfy your need for closure, I left the GOP specifically over spending. Does that now give me credibility in your mind? I do so crave it. Please say it's so.

Frankly, quite a lot of conservatives did the same during those years and were hardly silent. As has been stated, the hockey-sticking of the deficit over you guy's watch has ramped up the urgency to eleventy-one and then some. Sovereign debt default doesn't seem to bother you so why are you even arguing here other than to score dubious political blog points?

It's the same old Randian-Reaganite bullshit. Cut taxes for the wealthy --they need new yachts, mutha-f-er--and end needed programs for the non-wealthy but use the MBAish- frat boy rhetoric to pitch the bitch: "we're trimming the budget like good whitey accountants do"!

Jeremy: Yes, I had a lot of thoughts on the debt during the period you mentioned. But we are not in that period we are here. Now. Do you think the current debt level is just fine because you seem to have no opinion on the current debt whereas you have lots of questions about my opinion about the debt ten years ago.

Jeremy said...Joe - "So where are the Democrats now? They have proposed nothing that makes a modicum of sense."

Based on what?

A teabagger's view of the universe?

If you and others here think Medicare and Medicaid are such horrible programs, why not opt out right now.

Send a letter off today, making it clear that you and your entire family do not want to take part in such programs...ever.

Just buy your coverage from an insurance company.

And by the way, dbp's prvious comment that: "I would gladly forgo any future Social Security or Medicare benefits in exchange for not having to pay-in to those programs any further. I am 48."

Is laughable at best...because at his age of 48, even in good health, his insurance coverage would be over the top expensive.

And if he does have any pre-existing conditions...GFL getting any insurance that's remotely affordable.

4/5/11 11:44 AM

And how do you know this? Besides you conflate prepaid medical service with medical insurance. They are not one and the same. If he were allowed to buy across state lines for pure medical insurance, a true risk coverage with a high deductible then the coverage would in all likelihood not be that onerous.But that option isn't on the table.

Did you give any "thought" to these "debt loads" between 2000 and 2008?They were large but manageable. And as Obma’s monthly debt EXCEEDS Bush YEARLY debt, we are in entirely new territory.

Did these "debt loads" magically appear when president Obama was elected or the Democrats took the majority?

No, they just DRAMATICALLY INCREASED them…

*How much have the "wars" Bush got us into added to these "debt loads?"As they consumed less than 1% of yearly GDP, not much…considering that the Porkulus bill expended nearly as much money in ONE bill, than was spent in all those wars over the previous years, I’d say Pelosi/Reid/Obama have a lot to answer for and you?

J: You do realize that if you take all the money, all of it, from the rich you will not have enough to pay off the debt? Not just the income of the rich, the assets of the rich including their wrist watches and their accounts in Switzerland and Cayman. Not enough. So what do you propose to do to solve the budget crisis? Democrats did not bother with a budget last year when they controlled the legislature. The president has not weighed in on the budget. What ideas, if any, do you have? Because taxing the rich doesn't get you there.

Jeremy, the fact is that the government already spent the SS surplus. it's gone. the iou's from the govt are all that's left. that means that the government's largest creditor, Social Security, is now out of the lending business, and needs to be paid back, by a government that runs a 1.4 trillion per year deficit already. Obamaflation is the only answer. not really the only answer, just the most likely.

Garage: OK, the CBO is wrong and you are right. But what is it you were right about? Do you know? Are you telling us that 14 trillion in debt is just fine? Are you OK with the fact that it has gone up 40% in two years? Do numbers mean anything to you or are they just bullshit made up by the right wing?

And that's based on one person's opinion, Peter Morici, U of MD Business Professor.

Here's another view:

Thanks to hikes in the Social Security payroll tax in the 1980s designed to create a surplus to handle the crunch of baby-boomer retirements, the program's trust fund is projected to grow steadily for nearly 20 more years — until 2027.

After that, officials estimate there will be sufficient money to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041.

AND

Why do so many people believe Social Security is broke?

One reason is President George W. Bush told them so — repeatedly during the battle over his proposal to partially privatize the program by allowing workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.

''So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now,'' Bush said on Jan. 11, 2005. ''And that's what we're here to talk about, a system that will be bankrupt.''

Over the next several months, in dozens of stops across the nation, Bush amplified the warning.

Bush's statements left many economists shaking their heads because of what was inside the file cabinets — U.S. Treasury bonds.

Specially issued for the Social Security Trust Fund, the bonds are backed by the ''full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.'' The United States has never defaulted on a Treasury security, said Stephen Meyerhardt, spokesman for the Treasury Department's Bureau of the Public Debt. ''Treasuries are as safe as they come.''

''I have no doubt that Social Security will be there for a couple generations,'' said Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economics at the New School for Social Research in New York. ''Looking at the numbers right now, Social Security is one of the most financially sound programs that we have in the federal budget.''

4/5/11 11:53 AM

Where is the cash? Oh, thats right . its invested in a special Madoff type bond. Can't be sold or exchanged for any other negotiable instrument. At least Madoff's victims will see some recovery which is more than can be said for the current young contributors. Honestly you really are such a fool.

J said...It's the same old Randian-Reaganite bullshit. Cut taxes for the wealthy --they need new yachts, mutha-f-er--and end needed programs for the non-wealthy but use the MBAish- frat boy rhetoric to pitch the bitch: "we're trimming the budget like good whitey accountants do"!

Miss Ayn just sank a bit lower on her golden dildo in Hades.

4/5/11 12:56 PM

You can't get a tax cut )or more accurately a rate reduction) if you don't pay taxes. Obviously you are just a tax parasite so yeah, better rich white folk get to keep more of their money to spend on yachts and other things white folk like than spend it on you.

If you and others here think Medicare and Medicaid are such horrible programs, why not opt out right now.

Send a letter off today, making it clear that you and your entire family do not want to take part in such programs...ever.

Just buy your coverage from an insurance company.

Can't do it.

It has been tried.

"This case is Hall v. Sebelius, which was filed in September 2008. It was brought by a trio of senior citizens who preferred to keep their private hospitalization insurance rather than accepting Medicare coverage. They didn’t ask the government to return their substantial Medicare tax payments, they just wanted to be allowed not to be covered by the program. They did, however, ask to remain in Social Security."Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/03/ruling-forces-government-aid-us-citizens#ixzz1IfoC9jmJ

So.....even if you WANT to buy your own medical insurance after the age of 65 and can afford to buy your own insurance, the government will not let you opt out unless you ALSO give up your Social Security.

Since they won't let you opt out of paying INTO Social Security or opt out of paying INTO Medicare....they don't want to let you out either.

cubanbob - "Obama's average monthly deficits are larger than the average annual deficits in those years. That is why the urgency. By the way there was talk of these things during that time frame but the democrats being in sufficient number to block any consideration of these things in those years they blocked any consideration or vote on these items."

I see.

President Obama is elected, a year AFTER the recession kicked in December of 2007...and he's the reason we're experiencing higher monthly deficits.

Does this mean that when other presidents (Reagan as an example) were elected,with recessions in full swing, they were also the reason our monthly deficits soared?

And of course, while we had a Republican president in the White House, and the GOP basically running the show in the House and Senate for 60 of his first eight years, it was those nasty Democrats who stopped everything good from happening?

Tell me about all of the proposals the GOP made relating to health care reform or the deficits that were swatted down by the Democrats during the Bush years.

Garage: OK, the CBO is wrong and you are right. But what is it you were right about? Do you know? Are you telling us that 14 trillion in debt is just fine? Are you OK with the fact that it has gone up 40% in two years? Do numbers mean anything to you or are they just bullshit made up by the right wing?

I was just asking you if you thought the CBO was a trusted source.

Me, just always astonished that we are even having this conversation about making everyone pay except for the people that caused it.

Mikey, you're relying on the teabugger deception that taxes are at exhorbitant levels, when they're are not at all, historically speaking. Taxes--income, capital gains, estate, etc-- were quite higher the first term of Reagan admin. (around 50%) than they are now. Dull news to anyone who knows a bit of recent US history, or has even read the wiki on "supply side absurdities" ,--tho granted wikis are a bit steep for Sarahites or AA regs.

That said, authentic democrats should question BO's DoD spending, which surpasses BushCo. Many do. But it's merely a talking point for the TP/GOP : they are the hawks. Bush way outspent Clinton out least on DoD.

Even Miss Ayn criticized the Nixon/Kissinger gang for defense spending IIRC. Whoa...she slides up on the goldenshaft.

Original Mike - I'm sorry, but based on the many comments here regarding the teachers in Wisconsin and elsewhere, I'm afraid I just can't let myself be swayed by someone who, according to the local teabagger gang, is interested in nothing more than taking way, way too much hard-earned taxpayer money in return for doing such a poor job of educating American children.

Now, if you can get a job as a truck driver or in the case of some of the other teabaggers here, a job sucking up to The Queen and her loyal sidekick, Needy, maybe I'll listen to some of your right wing drivel.

Otherwise, try to get someone else to belive you know anything about anything.

J, no one dispute we’re still operating under Bush ‘43’s tax structure, no thanks to the current POTUS. It’s not taxes TODAY we’re complaining about, it’s the TAXES TOMORROW, that must INEVITABLY come to pay for Obama/Pelosi/Reid…the SS Tax Rate must be 88% to pay for future benefits, who’s going to, realistically, pay those rates? So our options are CONFISCATORY TAXES IN THE FUTURE, Massive Inflation to devalue the value of Government benefits, or curb spending….

My comment was in rerence to DB saying it was impossible to opt out...

EXACTLY, Tak Tak-No, DBQ busts you on a fact, and all you’ve got is snark…pretty sad, and points out it’s time to leave mommy’s basement and go get her smokes and Lotto tickets, and leave Mommy’s basement..since you’ve run out of coherent argument.

If FICA collections exceeded SS expenses by $10B, Congress took the money and spent it that same year. Spent it just like any other money on bridges to nowhere, welfare cheese, aircraft carriers, whatever. Poof, now the $10B is gone.

To keep track of how much they "borrowed" from SS, Congress has the Treasury issue $10B in special purpose, non-publicly traded bonds to the SS Administration. That is the SS "trust fund".

But where does the Treasury get the money to buy back the bonds? There are 3 options - Raise taxes, reduce non-SS expenditures or borrow. That's it. There's no magic pile of Social Security "trust fund" money that's going to save everyone's bacon. The trust fund bonds are just the US government's IOUs to itself.

As Republicans came out strongly Tuesday in favor of a plan that cuts deep into Medicare, turning it over to the private market in ten years:

2009 and 2010:

1. "We need to strengthen Medicare and preserve it for today's seniors and future generations, not slash it," Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on the Senate floor in October 2009.

2. "Cutting Medicare is not what Americans want," blared a press release from McConnell in December 2009. (The release has been removed from his website.)

3. John Boehner (R-OH), in September 2009: The Democrats' "health care bill would cut seniors’ Medicare benefits by $500 billion."

4. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), in a December 2009 op-ed, "The huge cuts in Medicare, massive new entitlements and increasing pressure to stop escalating costs would eventually require the rationing of care."

5. March 2010, Sen. John Thune (R-SD), a member of the Republican leadership, said the law would contain "higher taxes, Medicare cuts and higher premiums for most Americans."

6. The GOP-controlled group Crossroads GPS ran a series of ads ahead of last year's midterm elections accusing Democrats of targeting Medicare. Democrats in tough Senate races were accused of voting to "gut Medicare," "cut Medicare," "cut spending on Medicare."

Cut taxes for the top and pay for it by gutting vital social programs.

I have a better idea. Lets emulate Europe and institute confiscatory takes income tax rates, slash defense spending by 75% and implement a 12% VAT and then we can have a balanced budget just like them.

Earn $100. You know you should put it away for retirement, but you really want a new pair of boots. So you lend yourself the $100 and stick an IOU in your pocket. This is repeated many times over 40 years. The day you retire, you haul out all those IOUs from your pocket. At first you are giddy. Then confused. Then, slowly, it dawns on you, "I am so screwed".

J: I am not relying on anything other than math. We have 14 trillion in debt. The richest Americans do not have 14 trillion in assets. You can take their money, all of it, and you don't have enough to pay your obligations. From that point forward all tax collections would come from income taxes alone assuming the rich would want to go back to work after having their assets confiscated. This is just simple math, the kind of thing that doesn't go away and is not made better by sniping or blaming. It does not matter what, why, when or who caused it,it is there. It is not a political point of view. Consider it like a cancer, like a bad biopsy. We can get all mad about past behaviors that might have contributed but at the end of the day we have a bad biopsy and we have to do something about it. What?

I want all to the left of center to state with a straight face that the Social Security "lock box" which consists of IOU's is a tangible, spendable assest...so much so that you would be will to trade in the value of all of your assets (house, savings) and replace them with these IOU's

"In 2011, the current tax exclusion for employment-based health insurance would be replaced by a refundable TAX CREDIT for the purchase of health insurance, either through an employer or on an individual basis. The tax credit initially would be set at $2,300 per adult and $1,700 per child, not to exceed $5,700 per tax-filing unit." [Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/10]

* Health Insurance Will Cost $25,000 PER FAMILY BY 2016. According to the New America Foundation, under the current system of health care delivery in the United States, the full cost of an employer-based health plan for a family will be $24,291 by 2016. [New America Foundation, The Cost of Doing Nothing, November 2008]

* CBPP: Rep. Ryan's "Roadmap" Doesn't Control Health Care Costs. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Most Americans - including the poor and the elderly - would largely be left to purchase insurance on their own with a voucher or tax credit in an insurance market that would remain largely unreformed.

In particular, insurance companies could continue to charge people much higher premiums based on age, gender, or health status.

Under the Ryan plan, the burden of reducing health care expenditures would fall primarily on beneficiaries, who would face steadily rising health care costs with a steadily diminishing amount of health insurance and might therefore forgo needed health care. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/7/10]

Funny you guys call a U.S. bond an "IOU". That comes directly from a think tank in D.C. So dumb.

It’s an IOU, because it cannot be sold on a secondary or tertiary market. YOU CAN’T purchase a T-bill…only certain entities can. YOU buy a T-bill from them, on a SECONDARY MARKET…you can, in turn, sell your T-bill, to a third party, in a TERTIARY MARKET. The T-bills in the SS Trust Fund cannot be resold….they are IOU’s from Congress to the Fund.